Hindu dharma is implicitly at odds with monotheistic intolerance.
What is happening in India is a new historical awakening... Indian intellectuals, who want to be secure in their liberal beliefs, may not understand what is going on. But every other Indian knows precisely what is happening: deep down he knows that a larger response is emerging even if at times this response appears in his eyes to be threatening.

Previous Posts

Recent Comments

Sunday, September 04, 2005

As usual, Mr CP Bhambhari has gone off the tangent in his article, "RSS is the only reality" (August 25). The sum and substance of his 1,000-word piece is: Sangh Parivar is anti-Muslim. How and why, he does not care to elucidate. He is oblivious to the fact that the hallmarks of Hindu leadership - be it the Congress, the BJP or any other regional outfit - are self-aggrandisement and hypocrisy. Therefore, Hindu leaders have proved to be the greatest enemy of the Hindus and Hindu ethos.

The interest of the nation or that of the Hindus have never figured in the lust for power and self-promotion of the Hindu leadership either before independence or afterwards. All through the 20th century, ever since Gandhi came on the scene, Hindu leaders have treated India as their personal fiefdom and Hindus as slaves. Gandhi did not mind even the slaughter of the Hindus provided it kept the Muslims happy.

VP Menon whose brilliance and objectivity was recognised both by the British rulers and the Indian leaders had this to say about Gandhi: "He lived for it (Muslim community). Indeed he eventually died for it!" (The Transfer of Power in India, Orient Longmans, Delhi, 1957, p 442). Nehru who succeeded him after independence, provided for special rights and privileges - Articles 25 and Article 30 - for Muslims in the Objective Resolution moved by him in the Constituent Assembly even before Clement Atlee, the British Prime Minister, had announced his Government's decision to grant independence to India.

Nowhere else in the world except India would one find that a minority has been given a separate homeland and yet allowed to stay on in the same country. India is the sole example where a majority has been reduced to the status of a second-class citizenary. lt is testified by the fact that the most sacred places of the Hindus are still under occupation of the Muslims even after six decades of independence. Is it not the same minority, which plundered the Hindu civilisation for six hundred years?

Christian Europe was also subject to Muslim invasion for 1000 years. Has it given it invaders separate homelands or superior rights to Muslims on its soil? British saved the Hindu civilisation from the clutches of Muslim barbarism at the battle of Plassey in 1757 AD. Before their departure in 1947, the British performed their last act of grace.

To put an end to the ever-recurring Hindu-Muslim discords, they agreed to the creation of Pakistan for the Indian ummah, but only after the Muslim community had overwhelmingly voted for the division of India in the election held in 1945-46. Muslim leaders were at least forthright and honest to the core. They repeatedly declared in 1946-47 that because of their religious compulsions Muslims could never live peacefully with Hindus on the same soil.

True to its name. Pakistan - the land of the pure - Hindus and Sikhs were ethnically cleansed from its Western wing in 1947-48. Jinnah, descendant of a Gujrati parent created a homeland for his community - a unique feat in world history. Gandhi, another Gujrati, destroyed the Hindu identity by re-sowing the seeds of Islamic rule in India.

Gandhi perpetrated a fraud on Hindus driven out of Pakistan by not asking Muslim to leave for their Darul Islam. The rise of Gandhi on the political horizon of India after the death of BG Tilak in 1920 was the second greatest calamity that befell the Hindus after the establishment of Muslim rule in India in 1206 AD.